Re: x264 for Debian
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:09:39AM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>
> Sure, On2 has allowed free use of *its* patents relating to VP3. That
> doesn't mean that some obscure company will pop up out of nowhere with
> a bunch of patents they claim *also* apply to VP3, and that On2 has
> been infringing all along. Something like that happened with JPEG not
> too long ago.
This argument has been made. It's response from lawyers is that, unlike On2's
VP3.2, JPEG was believed to be patent-FREE. This opens the way for someone to
claim that their generic patent applies.
On2's VP3.2 patents have held undisputed for many years now. The base methods
have clear prior use (huffman tables, MDCT, etc), nobody has disputed them,
and since On2's more recent codecs (VP5, VP6, etc) are based on VP3.2 it would
serve someone well to dispute it if they thought they could.
There's a big difference, also, between "someone could dispute it" and
"many people have patents covering it specifically and are seeking royalties".
Someone could argue that the compression method used by bzip2 is patented and
try to seek royalties, but this "could" doesn't trigger the problem in the
GPL, that clause is only triggered when someone is activly legally persuing
royalties or other restrictions on use or distribution.
Nobody has, or is, persuing royalties on On2's VP3.2. All known patents which
apply have been disclaimed. It is, thus, patent-clear and DFSG-free.
> The patent situation is unfortunate. Nevertheless, the H.264 codec is
> being adopted by broadcasters throughout the world. For good or bad,
> the codec is here to stay for a while.
I'm not arguing that. Broadcasters are implementing any number of proprietary
methods. They are a direct threat to software freedom and need to be
boycotted by the free software community. To do otherwise is to put ourselves
in a legally disadventagous position while further supporting those who seek
to promote proprietary software.
> I'm not saying the patent issue should be ignored. It just strikes me
> as silly to even start comparing Theora with H.264.
Certain graphic artists would say the same of GIMP vs Photoshop, or compare
their favorite music application with the numerous GNU/Linux offerings, or
even 3d Studio Max/Bryce/Poser/etc vs Blender.
There are free alternatives. They may or may not be considered acceptable for
specific applications, but this doesn't change that proprietary software is
proprietary and is, thus, not DFSG-free.
> This is all off-topic for debian-legal, so I won't pursue the argument
> further (unless someone says something really silly).
Not really. Wether something is acceptable for inclusion in the debian free
package pool for license and patent reasons is exactly what this list is for.
Reply to: